Partial withdrawal basically means getting your ass shot at three or four times -- first when you go through all the work of extricating part of your troops while moving others to consolidate them into fewer bases, etc.; second when you make yourself targeted by being in fewer bases, meaning attacks can be consolidated; third, by being more vulnerable to attacks when you do go on patrol, because you have fewer patrols from fewer bases, so street attacks can also be consolidated - plus you have less firepower to disrupt this consolidation; then, fourth, when you finally do withdraw the rest of the troops.

Multi-stage withdrawal is the stupidest thing.

The paramount thing, at all times, is to portray the Dems as inadequate. And, quite frankly, they don't help themselves much in this regard.

Everyone agrees that withdrawal needs to be handled prudently and safely.

So Kevin, are you calling for the withdrawal of our troops in Iraq? Have you ever thought about how the enemy terrorists are going to use this as propaganda for their Islamofacist goals to destroy the freedoms and liberty our country holds so dear? What about the effect of your words on the Iraqis who are aiding us in our effort to transform the Middle East into a beacon of hope rather than a beacon of dispair? Have you thought about them?
If you still haven't, I hope you consider these words from Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman explaining why what you and other liberals are saying is so detrimental to our effort for a free and democratic Iraq in the Middle East.
Link
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.
He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

US troops in Korea was a big issue in 1952. Not so big an issue in 1972 or 2008. Nor will US troops in Iraq be such a big issue in 2028, the establishment political elite hopes.

The answer to the riddle - between now and April 2008 is ~270 days. Allow a month to get the final bill passed and 120 days to start withdrawal, and you have ~120 days left. Probably Duffy was just confused, but he's not off by much. (Of course, your point that the April date could easily be changed is valid.)

What's needed is not the sloganeering of certain politicians but a clear-eyed, multifaceted policy.

I see. And this was written when, some time in 2003?
.

Kevin: Really, sir, you should just stop posting about this subject. As one of the original cheerleaders IN SUPPORT of invading Iraq, you just don't have a shred of credibility on this subject anymore. I truly think it's part of the reason why posts on your blog are down so sharply lately. Frankly, a man of your intellect ought to show some healthy shame for being part of the invade Iraq chorus and just focus on those subjects that you you are good at -- domestic policy stuff, the Paris Hilton story, tennis, the cat thing, etc. Regrettably, not even the team of censors you have hired recently to quickly delete any and and all negative comments can absolve you of your support of the war.

rs: I don't think that was Duffy's point. It could have been, I guess, but nowhere in his piece does he mention the April 2008 date. If that was what he meant, he would have taken a sentence or two to explain it.

"Everyone agrees that withdrawal needs to be handled prudently and safely."

Well, I guess we shouldn't even start till January 20, 2009, eh? Counting on this current crew to do anything prudently and safely is a fool's errand. They couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

Ed

Have you ever thought about how the enemy terrorists are going to use this as propaganda for their Islamofacist goals to destroy the freedoms and liberty our country holds so dear?

Probably not, just as he probably isn't worried that gnomes are going to harness the power of sunspots to drain us of our vital bodily fluids. Why? Because he's not a fucking moron.

What about the effect of your words on the Iraqis who are aiding us in our effort to transform the Middle East into a beacon of hope rather than a beacon of dispair? Have you thought about them?

Yes, and so has the Secretary of Defense. He thought this kind of debate was a good idea.

Too bad it scares the hell out of you. Maybe you should go where it's safer for you?
.

Premature and public discussion...

Is that as bad as premature ejaculation, or worse?
You ought to be an expert on that, Al.

US troops in Korea was a big issue in 1952. Not so big an issue in 1972 or 2008. Nor will US troops in Iraq be such a big issue in 2028, the establishment political elite hopes.

HUGE difference. The South Koreans wanted us to remain.

In South Korea, we were never fighting a local insurgency that grew in intensity over the years.

The Iraqis want the hated occupier gone.

HUGE difference.

There is one huge assumption that goes unexamined in all of the calls for a residual force, and that is simply that the government of Iraq, once we begin to draw down, will accept such an arrangement. Seems to me there is plenty of evidence that the present, "friendly" government would be hard pressed to accept such and arrangement, and I see no likelyhood that a less friendly government would go along with this at all. So what are we going to do in that case? At the point at which a government in Iraq asks us to leave we have a choice to either get out fairly quickly or admit that we are there to occupy the oil fields, at which point the entire region will turn on us. Good luck.

There is one huge assumption that goes unexamined in all of the calls for a residual force, and that is simply that the government of Iraq, once we begin to draw down, will accept such an arrangement. Seems to me there is plenty of evidence that the present, "friendly" government would be hard pressed to accept such and arrangement, and I see no likelyhood that a less friendly government would go along with this at all. So what are we going to do in that case? At the point at which a government in Iraq asks us to leave we have a choice to either get out fairly quickly or admit that we are there to occupy the oil fields, at which point the entire region will turn on us. Good luck.

Great post kevin. good job. funny too.

Ye gods. How in the name of Elizabeth Montgomery can idiots like Michael Duffy not see this obvious truth - President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have no intention of EVER withdrawing troops and don't give a frack what anyone else wants or thinks. It doesn't matter what plan the Democrats have or what plan Duffy has or what plan anyone has. When Congress is willing to cut off funds for the war AND willing to impeach Bush and Cheney if they try and continue the war illegally, THEN we can start debating the when's and how's of getting out of Iraq. Until then, none of this stuff matters.

Mike

Duffy will have a job at Time next week, which is why he says what he says in the way that he says it. It's about job security, dude. They they wanted real analysis, they'd sponsor a writer who actually tried to say something meaningful about the topic. And if YOU wanted real analysis, you'd be reading something else...like a blog.

The Dems clearly made an error in marketing. From the moment they started talking withdrawal they should have been using the phrase "phased withdrawal" every time they mentioned it. Over and over again. There's still time.

Another Magic Pony Plan.

Could Michael Duffy please outline his plan to become president of the United States? Because once he explains and executes that, we'll take his plans for Iraq seriously.

Is this the same Michael Duffy who said "Bush will listen" to the ISG?

Yes, " A force of 50,000 to 100,000 troops would dig in for a longer stay"......to protect the interests of the oil companies that we've been killing Iraqis for. Geez, what ever happened to the good ol' days, when we went to war over bananas and pineapples?

Al: "Have you ever thought about how the enemy terrorists are going to use this as propaganda for their Islamofacist goals to destroy the freedoms and liberty our country holds so dear?"

Have you ever thought about how the enemy terrorists are going to use our continued unwanted occupation of Iraq and escalation of the war as propaganda to recruit more terrorists to destroy the freedoms and liberty our country holds so dear?

If the chickenhawks are going to base our foreign policy on what Bin Laden might say when we withdraw, then we will never leave.

Get it into your thick skull: No matter the conditions on the ground, the terrorists are going to claim victory when we withdraw, even if it happens 10 years down the road. Just like we are going to claim victory when we withdraw, no matter the conditions on the ground.

We went in with wild, reckless abandon.
Why can't we leave with wild, reckless abandon?

Partial withdrawal means you get only a little bit pregnant. And the withdrawal to begin AND end 120 days after passage of the bill is a no-brainer. The Pentagon simply has to use the teleportation systems it has had for years. After all, to avoid those long waits in gas lines in Iraq, it has been quietly using those famous legendary carburetors that allow cars to run on water. If the Iraqi insurgents can manufacture something as sophisticated as explosively formed munitions, certainly OUR military with trillions of dollars spent over the years on hardware development must have untold cool stuff they could unleash. But maybe they are waiting for the Klingon invasion. Shhhh!

I seem to recall when we invaded we had to do it RIGHT THAT VERY MINUTE because you couldn't just leave all those troops sitting out in the desert in the heat. Wouldn't they be much cooler back at their bases in upstate NY and western Washington and hell, even Alabama in the summertime ain't as hot as Iraq.

the only balanced, reasoned judicious approach is to leave instantly. This is the best way to minimize both US and Iraqi casualties. Hanging on for one extra day is a hysterical exercise in pseudoism

fair enough criticism of Duffy, but about this: Democrats would change that date in a heartbeat based on military counsel. Duffy knows this. No Democrat wants to withdraw any faster than military planners say is safe. So why does he imply otherwise?

According to Senate Majority Leader Reid, he is going to ignore the entire report given to him by military leaders in September. but military counsel is quite diverse, and he could probably find some to support what he has made his mind up about. And there are "some" Democrats want American forces withdrawn with no delay at all.

You are right to point out that every measure that has received overwhelming support by the Democrats has specifically called for a residual American force to remain in Iraq. They have not specified the size of the force, nor its "exit strategy", but they have voted overwhelmingly for an indefinite occupation of Iraq. Not only that, but some (including John Murtha) have spoken or written of the possibility that the redeployed troops would be ready for immediate redeployment back into Iraq if the circumstances warranted it.

A better piece would have simply told the truth: nobody is in favor of a "reckless U.S. departure." Everyone agrees that withdrawal needs to be handled prudently and safely.

There are, however, advocates of withdrawal on a pre-announced schedule. Withdrawing on a pre-announced schedule is probably neither prudent nor safe. If I remember correctly, you vacillate between supporting a "scheduled" withdrawal and a withdrawal based on achievement of "benchmarks". The most prudent withdrawal scheme is to withdraw only as benchmarks are achieved, but at present the achievement of benchmarks is proceeding very slowly, if in fact any benchmarks are being achieved at all.

As in 2003, there are no inexpensive safe options. The two worst options are: (1) to withdraw completely on a timetable and (2) to leave behind a residual force where it could be attacked.

Everybody is trying to avoid the concept that there are no inexpensive safe options. The least bad options are some variation of (a) permanent American occupation and (b) "as they stand up, we'll stand down" benchmark-based withdrawal.

... Have you ever thought about how the enemy terrorists are going to use this as propaganda. . .
Posted by: Al on July 19, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

It really is all just one big pissing contest with you, Al, isn't it?

Half a trillion dollars. For that kind of money, we could have taken that half a trillion dollars, built a giant mechanical penis with a built-in high-pressure water cannon, and sprayed faux urine 200,000 miles into space all the way to the moon.

And that still wouldn't be enough trash-talk one-upmanship on the terrorists for you.

No Democrat wants to withdraw any faster than military planners say is safe.

And the odds of finding a forthright military planner willing to speak to the question after 6 years of this criminal enterprise masquerading as adminisration's pogrom of intimidation and elimination of "misfits" is ....?

US MidEast experts: Most agree that either an al-Qaeda or Iranian takeover would be unlikely, and say that Washington should step up its regional diplomacy, putting more pressure on regional actors such as Saudi Arabia to take responsibility for what is happening in their back yards.

Oh, right, those other "regional actors" can hardly wait to "take responsibility for," that is, clean up after, the ungodly mess we've made. Right.

It took us about three weeks to invade Iraq against organized opposition - tank divisions with artillery and all the trimmings.

If you want to get our guys out with their major combat power intact - considering that now they _won't_ be facing organized, conventional-army opposition, at most light guerrillas - it'll be easier. Three weeks is plenty.

When the Administration flacks say it'd take 12 to 18 months, they're lying. If you believe them, you're stupid.

When did it become what the enemy thought about us? Does it really matter if Al Quaeda doesn't respect us and thinks we are wusses? Don't we want our enemies to underestimate us?

And for tha matter, yes it is better to fight Al Quaeda in America than in Iraq. Its easier to find radical Muslim terrorists in America than in Iraq,

The least bad options are some variation of (a) permanent American occupation and (b) "as they stand up, we'll stand down" benchmark-based withdrawal. MatthewRmarler.

That just means, Matthew, "permanent American occupation" for eternity. 'Cause "they," whoever "they" might be, are not standing up now and never will. You've got their so-called police force setting our troops up for ambush. Their "government" is going on vacation. This is less a real government than Ngo Dinh Diem's or his successors', or Alexander Kerensky's, or anybody's. There is no "they" who will stand up. So your proposal boils down to the proposition that we will be, as Atrios puts it, in Iraq "4evah."

That is not going to happen.

Osama_Been_Forgotten:

Man you are cooking today. I am laughing so hard there are tears rolling down my face.

Everybody is trying to avoid the concept that there are no inexpensive safe options. The least bad options are some variation of (a) permanent American occupation and (b) "as they stand up, we'll stand down" benchmark-based withdrawal.

Those who were miserably, disastrously wrong in their predictions about what would happen after we invaded Iraq -- particularly in the face of repeated warnings -- have neither any business nor credibility pontificating about what will happen after we leave.

A "clear-eyed, multifaceted policy" is the kind of thing one calls for if one believes we can always do things over and design foreign policy from scratch.

We can't, of course. It isn't possible to do this physically, at any time. It's especially unrealistic to expect a "clear-eyed, multifaceted policy" to emerge from an administration that has labored for years to produce the policy we have now. Any sportswriter would recognize the futility of advising last year's Oakland Raiders to start winning games by executing their West Coast offense -- the Raiders didn't have a West Coast offense, didn't have the personnel for a West Coast offense, and didn't have a coaching staff dedicated to the West Coast offense. But the wisdom of sportswriters hasn't yet penetrated Time magazine.

An elaborate mansion would be nice, but right now we should settle for just laying the foundation, and the foundation of American foreign policy for the near future must be a decision to liquidate the commitment in Iraq. Once that decision is made and acted upon we will have options to pursue other interests, and will know also that some options are closed to us.

Right now we don't have either, because success in American foreign policy is defined by the willingness of Iraqi factional leaders to do things they plainly have no intention of doing. This is absurd. When your boat is on the rocks the thing to do is get off them, and worry about where to sail later, later.

"According to Senate Majority Leader Reid, he is going to ignore the entire report given to him by military leaders in September."

Oh, garbage, Matthew. Starting a post with a dishonest talking point doesn't exactly set the tone for the rest of it, now does it?

"but military counsel is quite diverse, and he could probably find some to support what he has made his mind up about."

Just as you, personally, will find "signs of progress" in September's report and will insist that "the surge" should be given more time. Did you have a point?

"And there are 'some' Democrats want American forces withdrawn with no delay at all."

Really? Who are these Democrats? And are they speaking rhetorically, as in "Bring our boys home NOW?" And do they have any Congressional support for such a "full speed ahead and damn the consequences" approach?

"but they have voted overwhelmingly for an indefinite occupation of Iraq."

Not really. A residual force need not be an "occupying force." And saying that some forces will remain behind does not necessarily mean that they will be there "indefinitely."

"There are, however, advocates of withdrawal on a pre-announced schedule. Withdrawing on a pre-announced schedule is probably neither prudent nor safe."

Really? Who are these advocates? What, specifically, are their proposals? Is there any Congressional support for these proposals? Why are these proposals "neither prudent nor safe?"

"The most prudent withdrawal scheme is to withdraw only as benchmarks are achieved"

What benchmarks? And what should happen if the benchmarks are not achieved, as is happening in the current situation?

"The least bad options are some variation of (a) permanent American occupation"

Why is this a "least bad option?" What would be the purpose of such a "permanent American occupation?" How would we deal with the inevitable consequences and inflamed passions that arise from a "permanent American occupation?"

"and (b) 'as they stand up, we'll stand down' benchmark-based withdrawal."

What benchmarks do you propose? What should happen when the benchmarks are not met? What, precisely, does "stand up" mean in this context? What should the timeline be?

"Go over and look in the eyes of the soldiers and tell them they are losers on the battlefield. Are you going to tell them that they are losers when the return from the field. This is the Vietnam treatment all over again."

Oh give me a fucking break, already. Here. I'd say it to the face of anyone who has served:

You did a wonderful job in Iraq, the absolutely very best you could, under the worst of circumstances, just like the members of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War. But your President sent you on an impossible errand, a deadly fool's errand based on lies. I am so sorry for your fallen fellow-soldiers and their families and hope no real harm has come to you. And I hope you will always be able to say this, which is all any soldier can say: I served my country honorably to the best of my ability. I, and all of us, honor you.

See, try it, you can say it too: "Your President betrayed you, and you acted with incredible honor under the circumstances. We salute you." It's easy.

"The only clear victory the terrorist are winning is seen in their successful delivery of the propoganda machine from the progressive cowards who are ready to hide under their beds and hope no one carries a dirty bomb across the border."

ROFL... Dear heart, it is precisely because we are not ready to "hide under [our] beds" in fear that we advocate withdrawal from Iraq. Do try to keep up.

Idaho's Senator Larry Craig said in the Levin-Reed debate that the war really is about oil. http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/senator_craig_it_really_is_about_oil/C108/L108/

Idaho's Senator Larry Craig said in the Levin-Reed debate that the war really is about oil.

So the truth slowly comes out. Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson recently admitted the same thing:

In comments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Nelson admitted that the supply of oil had influenced Australia's strategic planning in the region.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world," he said.

"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

"It's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security."

To be fair George W. Awol has admitted the same thing. It's all about terrorists and oil, oil and terrorists, trying to kill the guy who tried to kill your daddy, dreams of hegemony, reelection strategies, and oil again.

Posted by: orwell on July 19, 2007 at 4:56 PM

I'm sorry. Did you say something?
.

but military counsel is quite diverse, and he could probably find some to support what he has made his mind up about.

Don't you dare Marler. Bush has made this his modus operandi for Iraq policy from day 1. There's no evidence that Reid would be such a close-minded asshole.

Go over and look in the eyes of the soldiers and tell them they are losers on the battlefield.

Better idea. YOU go over and tell the soldiers they must stay, fight, and die in an Iraqi civil war that has absolutely nothing to do with democracy for Iraq or security and freedom for the US.

I want out of Iraq as much as anyone, but you're the one giving us the WTF moment.

"OK then. Riddle me this. How is it that Duffy can correctly state that Levin-Reed requires withdrawal to begin within 120 days and then, two sentences later, imply that Levin-Reed requires withdrawal to be finished within 120 days? WTF?"

Well, It's currently end of July right now. So, say it was passed today. Then say, we didn't _start_ removing troops for another 120 days. So we _start_ removing troops December 1st. So, now we have to have _finished_ redeploying troops by April of 08. That gives us just 120 days to get the troops out. He doesn't say it has to be finished in 120 days, he says that we only have 120 days to do it. And he's right. His timeline is logical, the rest of it however is not.

Orwell: Are you going to tell them that they are losers when the return from the field. This is the Vietnam treatment all over again.

Listen up. I get tired of having to say this over and over again.

When we came home from Vietnam it wasn't the antiwar crowd that shunned us and called us losers, it was the rightwingers and beer-bellied VFW types.

Plus, what David in NY said at 5:05 PM.

And your first sentence should have ended with a question mark. Welcome to America, Pedro, now write proper fucking English or shut up. If the real Orwell was alive he'd tear your head off and feed you to the fucking crows.

The thing that everyone is saying we must not do is what we must do. We should leave quickly.

Of course, we won't.

There are things in all of our lives that we know in our hearts we should do but we don't for fear that it wouldn't be "prudent." Why should governments be any different?

I'm not much of a fan of Richard Perle, but he did say that the Soviets could leave Afghanistan in a number of days, and it's equally true here. This idea that redploying our troops out of Iraq will take months is just bullshit. The majority of them could just drive to Saudi Arabia and wait to be picked from there.

No offense meant to the real Pedro. He works for a living and his English isn't perfect yet but it's okay because he's not hiding behind the name of a great writer.

Al, the only reason we would like to withdraw from Iraq is that we know the US will never win until you, Major Al, is leading our troops.
Why, I bet you could fight, and win, the whole war single-handed. What's stopping you?

The U.S. military/industrial complex does not leave Halliburton's expensive equipment behind.

I *hope* that they finally do come around to admitting it's all about oil.

On that shining day, the American People should send a tax bill to PBAmocoExxonMobil for $500,000,000. Then BPAmocoExxonMobil should feel free to set aside as much out of their record profits as they like, and buy themselves a nice, shiny, mercenary army of half a million or more "private security contractors" - and go and secure the oilfields themselves, and our troops can come back and protect the homeland.

And if this increases BPAmocoExxonMobil's cost of doing business, then that's just fine.

And if BPAmocoExxonMobil has to pass that cost on to customers, then that's also just peachy.

Because then, customers might decide to purchase a cheaper form of energy in an actual FREE market. And if there still isn't one, after factoring-in the cost of oil wars (ie. CORPORATE WELFARE) then I'm sure some bright young entrepreneurs out there are ready to invest money in bringing one to market.

Hell,
We should have just bugged out of there the day Saddam died. We should have said; "Mission Accomplished!" and left. Spin it however you want, we went in there to remove Saddam, Saddam's removed, good day sirs!

All of this debate on timelines, partial withdrawal, phased withdrawal, etc is absurd. There is only two questions on the table. One is immediate withdrawal which means that we immediately decide now that we must and will withdraw. After that decision is made the only questions remaining are of logistics which is what most here are arguing.

Alternatively, we stay the course and decide to withdraw at some future time.

In any case, the result of the war is settled: the US has suffered a severe strategic defeat. As to the stay the course deadenders just remind yourself it is US policy that has been defeated, not the US military.

If Duffy does not misrepresent Levin-Reed, he has nothing to say. Nothing. Nothing at all. So isn't it better to misrepresent than to have NOTHING to say.

HUGE difference. The South Koreans wanted us to remain.

You said a mouthful there Darth...

excerpt from Robert B. Boettcher's - Gifts of Deceit - Sun Myung Moon, Tongsun Park and the Korean Scandal. (1980)

The set up for this excerpt is that in 1970 the State Department had ordered US Ambassador Porter to set up a meeting with South Korean President Park Chung Hee in Korea to tell him of the United States decision to withdraw 20,000 of the over 60,000 U.S. troops stationed in SK and nothing was going to change that. While Ambassador Porter was explaining the "sweeteners" the US government was proposing to give SK including $1.5 billion in military aid, Park told Porter that he would not give his permission for the troops to leave.

Excerpt from pg 90:

Park was more than displeased. He was intransigent. The South Korean President told Porter he would not allow the American troops to leave Korea. The United States government had no right to take them out, he insisted, so he simply would not permit it to happen.

Porter expected displeasure, but he was hardly prepared for an outright refusal Park had no authority to make. He told Park that although their two countries were close friends, the United States had no intentions of surrendering control of its military forces to the Korean government or any other government for that matter. The President of the United States was the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and would remain so. The meeting ended with Park still adamant that the troops could not be withdrawn.

"and (b) 'as they stand up, we'll stand down' benchmark-based withdrawal."

Also known as "Once you stop beating me up, I'm divorcing you."

From an editorial in the local paper
"No weapons of mass destruction were found, Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 and wasn't a major front in the war on terror until Mr. Bush's invasion made it the recruiting and proving ground of choice for opportunistic terrorists. American forces were only briefly viewed as liberators and are now widely viewed as occupiers. For the longest time the administration couldn't even admit that the insurgents were a threat, let alone that Iraq was in the grip of a civil war......
" a president who always has confused stubbornness with leadership...nothing changes his mind--but nothing is what he is getting from sticking to his failed Iraq policy. Even this president will eventually have to bend before reality...."
"...to those who think there still is a mission to be accomplished, that an American-style democracy will rise amidst the ashes of a country whose people mostly blame Americans for their troubles,
the suggestion that the adminstration is discussing how to disengage should be a wake-up call...
"And if the White House isn't considering another policy less costly to the lives of American troops, then shame on it."

Say loud and often. Occupying Iraq isn't the solution, it's the problem.

Al will never understand that the current situation in Iraq is in fact the propaganda goldmine that Al-Qaeda always sought. Not to say that I agree with the know-nothings who think 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' is the same thing as the actual Al-Qaeda, mind you.

Its a totally f#cked up situation, but hey, you warmongering idiots brought this on yourselves. Whatever happens after we leave (and whatever it is would have happened whether we left right away or whether we leave in 5 years), 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' won't last very long after we go! Firstly, because they are obviously a situational response to our military presence there. No US, no 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq'. Why? Because the Shia majority is going to slaughter the shit out of them as soon as they have the slightest opportunity. Right-wing tools think that is a reason we need to stay forever. They don't understand that the Shia militias are friendly with both Iran and the current Iraqi govt. They are not these total rogues, operating on their own. They are effectively, Iraq's army. Most of the violence in Iraq is the Sunni insurgents attacking the Shia forces. We just happen to be in the way, preventing them from really going at it with each other. We can either stay in that role indefinitely, with whatever number of forces we leave there (unless we leave so few that the Iraqis think they can take 'em), or we can leave and let what you idiot pro-war manly men unleashed on the world in service to your outsize egos and massive insecurity happen.

Al will never understand that the current situation in Iraq is in fact the propaganda goldmine that Al-Qaeda always sought.

Nah, Al knows, but doesn't care. What matters to him is using Iraq as a cudgel to beat liberals with, and if a few thousand troops have to die for it, so what?

I also love Duffy's assertion: "Many Republicans might support such a plan in private if they did not feel that the Democrats were keeping them up all night to score points at the President's expense"
Yes if only those bickering, unhelpful Democrats wouldn't keep the Republicans all night, then the Republicans might support the Democrats plan.
In private.

Thing I notice about US politics.

Democrats want what they want right away and don't discuss consequence in long time. Mostly they want.

Why not talk about what want in long time then analyze how to get it.

"Go over and look in the eyes of the soldiers and tell them they are losers on the battlefield."

Yes there is a loser. His name is George Bush. He lost this war. He had no plan. He ignored the generals. YEs the war is lost. But you are blaming the wrong people. The troops did not lose this war. George Bush lost this war.

Hey Orwell, I'm the only "progressive" I know who is gleeful @ the prospect of a total Amerikan defeat in Iraq, and I know a hell of a lot of progs. I feel for the grunts as a Viet-era vet and Army-town redneck, but I hope they bring their guns home an' turn them on the scum that sent them and good Germans like you, shit-stain.

I *hope* that they finally do come around to admitting it's all about oil. On that shining day, the American People should send a tax bill to PBAmocoExxonMobil for $500,000,000.--[osama_been_forgotten]

Count your zeroes again, obf :-). (I know, it's a mind-boggling number, isn't it?)

Let me be more clear.

Problem number one with short time want is that al Qaeda does not care about what Democrates want.

Russia did not care either I will tell you for sure. Russia was happy to take advantage of US arguments but would not give Democrats what they want.

I think other US says to Democrates when things are good, "OK, take this bottle and shut up now please". Russia will say, "Look baby at bottle, your mommy will not give it to you so you kick mommy good". When baby away from mommy, baby will realize we not so much your friend. Too bad baby. Mommy was smarter. Now she gone. Ha ha.

When things bad, Democrates say "Bush, you save us oh we like you so much we so afraid, help help go get that Saddam" Now Saddam gone, baby soes not need mommy. Its OK, al Qaeda will wait for baby. Ha ha. Yummy.

Democrats want what they want right away and don't discuss consequence in long time. Mostly they want.

I think that applies more to Republicans than Democrats. Republicans cut taxes without considering the long term, and they started a war of choice that has devastated the military to a degree it will take 25 years minimum to rebuild. The middle ranks are depleted to a degree that makes the destruction to the ranks after Vietnam pale in comparison.

GC. Why have military? Parades?

GC. I tell you. Parades no fun for military. Shine boots, kick high, left rught left. Paint tanks. It as you say "sucks cumcumber into pickle"

Military like to win.

One Parade I tell you was good.

Marshall Zhukov rode white horse after we trample Nazi flags. No nazi flags to trample, then whould not be good.

60 years later, I still love it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAX5vEnOHqQ

So basically we can't leave because the status quo media, unwilling to investigate beyond the press releases they are rewarded for simply publishing without question, refuse to consider other possibilities.
The right wing crazies drunk on hubris and group think empowerment (just short of marching with brown shirts to the book burning) point to their past failures to warn us that pointing out their past failures will just strengthen their resolve to make the same mistakes over and over again. Like alcoholics, junkies, and wife beaters they will stop at nothing to get what they want because they are afraid to stop, afraid to reason, and afraid to change. America is reaping what it has sown and how.

"The right wing crazies drunk on hubris and group think empowerment..."
-Biff Spaceman

Sounds like a Greek liqueur and new Project Management Software.

ckelly: Bush has made this his modus operandi for Iraq policy from day 1. There's no evidence that Reid would be such a close-minded asshole.

Fair point as to Bush. As to Reid, he has promised not to listen to what the American generals have to say, and he did not attend Gen. Petraeus most recent briefing.

This war is so lost.

Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno...cited "significant success" over the past four weeks in military operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq and in the training of Iraqi security forces, and said there has been movement toward political reconciliation.

Asked why support at home continues to wane, Odierno said: "All I can do is tell you what is going on. I cannot make anyone listen."

Odierno, Crocker and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, appeared in separate videoconferences yesterday to deliver identical messages on behalf of President Bush's strategy: Progress is being made in Iraq, but the strategy needs more time than Congress and the American public appear willing to give. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Progress in Iraq is being made in military training, in military operations, and politically. Does anyone care?

"A better piece would have simply told the truth..."

Sadly that one line sums up far too much American political reporting for the last, oh, fifteen, sixteen years at least...but especially the last six.

"Progress in Iraq is being made in military training, in military operations, and politically. Does anyone care?"

Funny how they've been making great progress for five years but still aren't any farther ahead...at what point do you decide to stop banging your head against the wall?

ex-liberal has made great strides in reading comprehension. Does anybody care?

"Progress in Iraq is being made in military training, in military operations, and politically. Does anyone care?"

LOL... Dear heart, "progress is being made in Iraq" has been the mantra of the Bush administration every single month for the past four years. The pessimists have been right for every single one of those months. Can you think of a single reason why we should believe the Bush administration now?

If so much "progress" is being made, why has the Bush administration admitted that it won't have a good report to make in September and has asked for at least another couple of months? Why is the Bush administration now claiming that the benchmarks that it had a major hand in drawing up aren't really the "right" benchmarks and that we should be looking at other "benchmarks?" Why is said "progress" not visible in any of the independent data we are receiving from Iraq?

"As to Reid, he has promised not to listen to what the American generals have to say"

Still lying, Matthew?

Wolf Blitzer asked veteran journalist and war supporter Michael Ware the other day about the "progress" Gen. Peter Pace mentioned he saw during his recent 24-hour visit to Iraq.

Ware, who's been in Iraq four years, responded (and I'm paraphrasing here): "With all due respect to Gen. Pace - he's out of his fucking mind."

Here is what will happen in September: Petraeus will insist that "the surge" is working, that "progress is being made," and that he needs more time. The Bush administration and most Congressional Republicans will insist that he be given that time, despite the abundant evidence that contradicts his report. As a side note, Matthew Marler and faux-liberal will be here, touting these signs of progress, and insisting that "the surge" needs more time.

Petraeus might say something like:

Well, here's the bottom line up-front for you. The Iraqi security forces are in the fight; they are fighting for their country. They are, as this notes, increasingly leading that fight. And I will show that quantitatively, how that is tracked with some of these measures of progress. November, 2005

Or he'll say:

I can tell you there is very substantial momentum in [the effort to train the Iraqi security forces]. November, 2005

He might even say:

Most important, there is one critical difference -- and it is that our current strategy is showing signs of succeeding. March, 2006

Or:

More important, the Iraqis' increasing commitment to the political process has led to an increasing and tangible commitment to the Iraqi state. March, 2006

Or he might talk about:

Huge progress is being made in training Iraqi combat troops and 24 homegrown battalions have now taken control of assigned territory. November, 2005

Or:

the target date for beginning a major American withdrawal has been June, 2006. August, 2005

Or:

The weight of Iraqi security forces is being felt. March, 2005

Or:

But what I would say is that there has been enormous progress just in the seven or eight months that we've actually been recruiting, training, equipping and employing Iraqi security forces. Huge progress. March 1, 2004

Or:

What we've had starting a month ago or so is a sustained spike. Arguably the spike has already gone down. December, 2003

Or:

Iraq's security services are not dominated by non-Sunnis. 'Absolutely not . . . The national forces are national forces, typically Shia, Sunni, Kurdds, Yezidi, everything. There is no shortage from all the difficult areas.' Spring, 2004

Or he might write an op-ed for The Washington Post (just a month and a half before a U.S. election) in which he talks about "tangible progress ... in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do," not to mention that "there are reasons for optimism, that "equipment is being delivered," "infrastructure is being repaired," that "command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished," and that "Iraqi security forces are in the fight."

He might even say that:

Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out fraont and with continued coalition ... support, this trend will continue.September, 2004

All of the above are either direct quotes from Petraeus or are from articles based on direct quotes from Petraeus. There is no reason to believe that anything will change with the report he gives to Congress in September. In fact, we already know that nothing has changed, since he's given a preview of that report in his interview with right-wing radio host, Hugh Hewitt, in which he said:

And we have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground, gains against the principal near-term threat, al Qaeda-Iraq, and also gains against what is another near-term threat, and also potentially the long term threat, Shia militia extremists as well.

So, no, faux-liberal, nobody cares that "progress is being made." We've heard it too many times before and there is no reason to believe that anything significant has changed, particularly in light of the independent data about conditions in Iraq.

Most of the above comments were taken from an article by Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com.